Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious
Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too.
It may have seemed obvious to you and me that Fluffy and Fido are aware of their own existence and are not simply biological machines. You may also take it for granted, when you stare into the eyes of a chimpanzee, that you're seeing a self-aware being. And that when the whale you helped to free from being tangled in fishing gear proceeded to swim around the boat giving you high fives, she was saying thank-you. But scientists (especially those who make money through experimenting on captive animals) have been very cautious in coming to this conclusion.
Finally, however, the official decision was reached in late night discussions two weeks ago during the prestigious annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference. This year's conference was entitled "Consciousness in Human and Nonhuman Animals" and included presentations by neuroscientists and experts in the fields of marine mammals, birds and cephalopods (octopus etc.). The conference issued this announcement:
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the conclusion of the Conference, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Philip Low, David Edelman and Christof Koch. ... The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence of Stephen Hawking, in the Balfour Room at the Hotel du Vin in Cambridge, UK. The signing ceremony was memorialized by CBS 60 Minutes.
The group didn't attempt to define what consciousness actually is. That's a very complex questions and no one really has a clue. But the full declaration includes statements like:
Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots. Mammalian and avian emotional networks and cognitive microcircuitries appear to be far more homologous than previously thought. Moreover, certain species of birds have been found to exhibit neural sleep patterns similar to those of mammals, including REM sleep and, as was demonstrated in zebra finches, neurophysiological patterns, previously thought to require a mammalian neocortex. Magpies in particular have been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, great apes, dolphins, and elephants in studies of mirror self-recognition.
... The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.
So, is this something more than a bunch of theoreticians telling us what we already know? Yes. It's a really important statement that will be used as evidence by those who are pushing for scientists to develop a more humane relationship with animals. It's harder, for example, to justify experiments on nonhumans when you know that they are conscious beings and not just biological machines.
Some of the conclusions reached in this declaration are the product of scientists who, to this day, still conduct experiments on animals in captivity, including dolphins, who are among the most intelligent species on Earth. Their own declaration will now be used as evidence that it's time to stop using these animals in captivity and start finding new ways of making a living.
Read the full declaration here.
36 comments
When science and the law regarding animals start working together, THAT is when an ethical conclusion can be made, in my opinion.
3 Like
I am Lori Marino, Science Advisor for Earth in Transition, and neuroscientist for the past twenty years. I also co-authored a paper on dolphin mirror self-recognition with one of the signatories of the Declaration, Diana Reiss. With that said, I find this to be a very interesting and complicated discussion and applaud everyone for their input. There are a number of different threads in the overall conversation and I'll try to pick up on some of them here. First, the notion that everything that is obvious is real doesn't really hold. Science is in the business of using a particular method to test a specific set of hypotheses. Sometimes those hypotheses are really obscure and other times they are so obvious that you want to say... duh! Nevertheless, a scientific demonstration provides a certain level of credibility and objectivity to a belief that can't be beat! There are lots of things in life that are obvious but absolutely wrong. Many perceptions are obvious but biased by our own beliefs. So we should not be picking on the scientific method. Its the best tool we have to answer questions in an objective manner.
Now, given all this, I understand why there is such controversy over this "Declaration". Not only does it appear rather like the scientists are saying something we already knew... but the fact is that we've had the scientific data for a while now - not just our own observations. So, to draw a conclusion like this at this point and in a way that makes it sound like some kind of decree or proclamation is perhaps a sign of the hubris of our species over anything else.
What concerns me more about the Declaration is the fact that it is devoid of any ethical dimensions. It is not enough to make such a declaration without considering the consequences of that knowledge. DanFouts mentioned that we NEED to do research on animals (and other humans). In fact, that very need is a cultural illusion. A very small percentage of research on other animals has led to real health benefits for humans. We just keep doing it because "that is what we do". But even if it did have tremendous benefits, that would not make it ethical or moral to do so. Biomedical research on other humans would actually be more effective than on other species but no one would advocate that - and rightly so! We do not have a need to do anything. Animal research is a part of our culture because we have set up our scientific enterprise to rely upon it. If we decide to make a change, we can. There a lot of alternatives to research on other animals.
So, what disturbs me most about this Declaration perhaps is the fact that there is no ethical conclusion. If these kinds of conclusions do not provide a motivation to change our behavior, are they especially important?
@LoriMarino Not sure what conclusions you want to draw... Here are some thoughts:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/08/23/consciousness-and-moral-status/
@LoriMarino I am not sure what ethical conclusion you want to draw... Here are my thoughts.... http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/08/23/consciousness-and-moral-status/
1 Like
@LoriMarino Well said and written. I am just not sure that ethical conclusions and dimensions are in our realm as scientists. Undoubtedly I agree with you in regards to my personal feelings and this declaration has only served to reinforce something that I have felt for years. It seems to me that the application of this declaration to ethics is more in line with the relm of philosophers. I think that their presence on the ethics boards of scientific, academic and medical institutions have proven to be valuable and I hope that they would give this finding the appropriate weight when establishing and reviewing the ethical guidelines for those institutions.
1 Like
I think that the traditional view of science is that it should be silent on ethics. Certainly the scientific method should be silent on ethics. No matter what the opinions of the investigator he or she has the responsibility to do rigorous objective research. And the peer review system helps ensure that research is on the up and up. However, the idea that scientists should never engage in ethical discussion is not realistic and not a very good idea. After all, who knows more about their subjects than the scientists who study them? We cannot afford to NOT hear from the scientists anymore. There are too many troubles in the world. Wouldn't you agree?
@LoriMarino @MarcHutton Until their is a solid theory of ethics, its in the realm of philosophy. That being said, the inclusion of philosophers in the scientific discussion is really important. There are a number I like, but perhaps one of my favorites is Dan Dennett. Though he is largely involved in the Skepticism/Atheism/Humanist/Bright movement, much of what he says talks a lot about ethics. He also has a great understanding of science and is able to draw important lines between science and philosophy.
@MarcHutton @LoriMarino I don't think science should have a say about ethics, or at least not until someone makes a proper theory of it. That is not to suggest that individuals or organizations shouldn't develop ethical standards, but as you put it, those are (currently) philosophical questions.
@LoriMarino I'm still not sure what ethical conclusions we are suppose to draw from the term consciousness when the term is so ill-defined. I still believe that we need to create ethical standards, but in many respects, those ethics are culturally based. The lack of ethics has the potential to allow for huge leaps in science. If we didn't have such standards, the amount of knowledge we could glean from human experimentation (for instance) would be vast. However, we have strong cultural values that restrict us from doing so.
@LoriMarino Also, the need to do experiments on life forms is paramount. The question isn't whether the experiments are needed, but instead which ones are most useful and which ones are we comfortable with doing (in light of our ethical standards)
What is it with people on here questioning the scientific method? Assumptions are at the start of science, not the conclusion.
I hope this is serious science and not speculation ramrodded by ideology of the moral and ethical variety. Many lay people are suspicious of science as it is. We don't need to be overreaching simply because our biases make us badly want it to be so.
1 Like
I'm not even certain that all of the commenters are capable of consciousness.
1 Like
Sorry, but as I do agree we should be careful about how and what we do experiments on, I am not about to say we can't do experiments on a creature because it is conscious. Not only do we NEED to experiment on non-human, but also on humans as well... this indeed is how we objectively verify and produce learning and knowledge to better our understanding how to work with our world. I am not advocating cruel treatment, only an understand that certain degrees of experiments must take certain forms we don't really like, and I am 100% for the idea of new ways of objectively learning that don't hurt any creatures.
I am glad the scientific academia has more or less objectively establish an important degree of understanding about certain aspects of consciousness, and I don't think anyone here doesn't understand how that was established; by experimenting on animals.
2 Like
The commenters here obviously lack a basic understanding of how science is conducted. While it may, as they have declared, seem obvious that animals have consciousness science is not based on personal and biased declarations and observations. Science requires that nonbiased repeatable empirical observations and experiments be conducted and the results analyzed before drawing a conclusion. This means that the data must be able to demonstrate the fact exists dispite the observers desire for it to exist. For someone to claim that they are educated in science to then say it is a "matter of common sense" is to demonstrate that they are not truly educated in the scientific method and quite frankly do not know what they are talking about. As a scientist and researcher myself I appritiate the fact that this conclusion has only been reach via hard work and by making sure all of the arguments counter to this conclusion have been addressed as any real scientist should.
@MarcHutton You make false assumptions, Mr. Scientist. Some of us apply what we know about science - and others, like yourself should just stay in the lab away from people.
@CindyLudwig @MarcHutton You're not really making an argument, or really saying anything...What are these false assumptions, and what do you know of science? Why do you want him in the lab at all if you supposedly think he is a bad scientist? I don't understand how anyone can question the scientific method and call themselves a scientist.
@JohannSantos @CindyLudwig Johann understands what I was getting at perfectly. I am a PhD chemist, when I conduct an experiment it is relatively easy for me to determine the outcome especially when we have spectroscopy and NMRs. We can not read minds, so it is not possible to do a "Valcun mind meld" and declare that an animal is conscious. I have the up most respect for these researchers because the experiments that had to be devised and conducted are probably some of the most difficult in science. To devise an experiment that is truly unbiased and gives a true insight into the mind of another creature that can not communicate is extremly difficult because you have to try to elimate any chances of experimentalist influence and any harm to the test subject. These studies are the biological equivalent of partical physics and are well worth any funding the receive. I made no false assumptions, I made my comments based what was written and if you feel that you didn't express yourself sufficiently to avoid any "false asummptions" that lies completely and squarely on your shoulders now doesn't it.
That's right, denigrate the commenters. Does it make you feel superior? Scientific method? Yup, know that, understand it, applied it in college and in the outside world. Not all scientific studies are cutting edge and worth the money spent to conduct them.
@MarcellaCovault I don't see how marc was denigrating anyone. He made a concise point that science has a method and everyone who said that this is old news because its obvious are not thinking critically. Perhaps the only thing worse than people making stuff up / believing what they want to believe is people pretending that they are doing science or people thinking they are doing science when they are not. Some people might think its obvious that inanimate objects have souls and consciousness, but we don't just believe them because they thinks its obvious.
2 Like
A few points. First:, both the article and plenty of research points out that the definition of consciousness is vague and undetermined. Second, for those who think that this was an obvious answer, you've failed to understand the basics of science, which is that you must test assumptions and decrease the margin of error before saying something is a valid theory. Just because people believe something is obvious doesn't make it right. Third, though I understand the moral nature of animal rights (or the concept of rights in general), we must understand that not all experiments on animals are cruel. Perhaps more importantly, humans are superior to all other life on this planet. That's not based on quality or quantity or even sophistication. Its based solely on the idea that every organism is from its own perspective superior. Every organism would and does naturally take advantage of its environment to fullest degree, only being kept in check by that same environment. The best credit I'd give to humans, and what might actually make us truly superior, is that our consciousness has granted us the ability to keep ourselves in check. I know many of you will say that we have failed to do so, but that's only because its hard to see within a single lifespan.
@JohannSantos While I maintain a commitment to animal rights, no animal testing, and vegetarianism, this is one of the most logical and reasonable explanations for humans treating the animals as they do. Nicely put.
Really? And these "scientists" are PAID to come to an obvious conclusion? How absurd. Of course, animals have consciousness. That has not been disavowed in western society in many decades. However, that doesn't mean they have the conscience or social ability to be the dominant species on the planet (Mother Nature's mighty power notwithstanding). If humans don't quit wholesale slaughtering or imprisoning or beating down each other in the name of some "cause" or other (including the "animal rights" sociopathic movement and the various religious wars), we will self-destruct and Mother Nature can start all over. Maybe that's worth more consideration (if we want to continue as a species) than beating the various special interest man-hating drums.
2 Like
Although its nice to now have a paper to reference, this conclusion does come under the category of 'well ... no shit Sherlock!"
2 Like
Hmmm....I don't get how this is news. Of course animals are conscious. If they weren't they would be comatose or dead. Just look at the brain, study physiology, animal behavior. What would be the purpose of sensory organs if they were not to provide information to the brain about the environment? I thought the current debate was whether animals have a conscience - not the same as consciousness, although I have seen people mistakenly interchange the words as if they were the same.
You're right. It's not news that nonhuman animals have basic consciousness; the news is that the mainstream, conservative scientific community is now recognizing it.. (But it's still not accepted, for example, that fish feel pain or that lobsters are conscious.)
2 Like
@michaelmountain Well, I guess I represent the "mainstream conservative scientific community" as someone schooled in natural science as well as medical science 40 years ago, and this should be common sense.
2 Like
Even more respect for Steven Hawking for overseeing and signing this declaration. The human race is finally evolving past the point of anthropocentrism and self-absorbed arrogance to recognize the consciousness of nonhuman animals. It has begun here, with the most brilliant minds, and will hopefully continue throughout the realms of science, medicine, government, education, and the common man. Thank you to all who signed this important declaration.
[...] Via Earth in Transition: [...]
[...] all of ‘That’ is conscious? If you haven’t seen it already, take a look at the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Science is finally admitting a fraction of what the ancients knew: that every [...]
[...] [...]
[...] July, we reported that science leaders from around the world had reached a critical consensus that humans are not the only conscious beings. Other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too. This is their [...]
[...] un caprice sadique qui coûte des souffrances infinies à des millions d’êtres sensibles et CONSCIENTS. La condition animale en France est un scandale européen. Il est urgent et imperatif de faire [...]
[...] are animal activists that had already reached the conclusion that animals are conscious simply by staring into their eyes, they mockingly applaud the new recognition by this group of scientists, and move on to suggest the [...]
[...] rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] are animal activists that had already reached the conclusion that animals are conscious simply by staring into their eyes, they mockingly applaud the new recognition by this group of scientists, and move on to suggest the [...]
[...] rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] this rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read "Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious". I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] another common response, in reader comments at Psychology Today and another story about the declaration, was a demand for proof. Animals can’t tell us about their emotions, after [...]
[...] rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] human exceptionalism is being undermined, as scientists have agreed that, indeed, other species of animals have consciousness. An example of a species that has consciou… I’m kidding. This was just an excuse to [...]
[...] http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ [...]
[...] conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too.” Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Share this:FacebookTwitterMoreStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInEmailPrint Leave a comment | [...]
[...] Earthintransition.org http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ [...]
[...] this rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] ותוצאות המפגשים והראיות שהוצגו בקיימברידג’ רוכזו במסמך אחד, ולטענת מבקרים לא מדובר במידע חדש או שובר מוסכמות, אלא [...]
[...] rule of thumb, but today I broke down and opened a message the subject line of which read “Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious“. I honestly thought it was a joke, likely from one of my favorite newspapers, The Onion. [...]
[...] a very good post on Earth in Transition. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in [...]
[...] Cambridge University, where some of the world’s top scientists issued a declaration saying that humans are not the only conscious beings. Other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too. (This may have been [...]
[...] nonhuman animals are sentient, self-aware, and conscious. You can read an article on it here: Scientists Declare: Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious. Embedded within that article is the full report in PDF form if you’re interested in [...]